Economy

US key to Cuban Econ

US key to Cuba economy-Helms-Burton limits out investors
Spadoni 2010 [Paolo Spadoni 2010 assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at
Augusta State Failed sanctions why the US sanctions against cuba could never work page 105]

The Helms-Burton law created a more uncertain and riskier business environment, resulting in foreign
lenders providing credits to the island at higher rates. Even before March 1996, Cuba ranked among the
most risky countries for investment due to its economic indicators (especially trade deficit), high foreign
debt, government intervention in the economy, and the U.S. embargo (Perez Villanueva 2001). But the
passage of Helms-Burton drove interest rates for bank loans and other financing for investment projects
to as high as 20 percent or more (Confidential Report 1999, 24). A Cuban official report submitted to the
United Nations in September 1996 clearly stated, "It is estimated that in 1995 financing accounted, on
average, for 13 per cent of the value of the loans, rising on occasion to 20 per cent, with the rate
increasing as the blockade was tightened" (United Nations 1996, 19). The final cost offoreign credits is
therefore particularly burdensome for Cuba, which was already obtaining short-term loans at high
interest rates and had virtually no access to medium- and long-term financing from banks and financial
institutions.




Hurts US economy

Embargo hurts U.S. economy loss in sales and jobs
Chamber of Commerce 12 (Oppose Unilateral Economic Sanctions, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, December 19 2012,
http://www.uschamber.com/international/agenda/oppose-unilateral-economic-sanctions)//CB

While the current isolation of Cuba has far outlasted its original purpose, U.S. policies impose real costs.
For American businesses, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated in 2001 that the Cuba embargo
cost U.S. exporters up to $1.2 billion annually in lost sales. A March 2010 study by Texas A&M University indicates that
easing restrictions on agricultural exports and lifting the travel ban as proposed in recent bills could result
in up to $365 million in additional sales of U.S. goods and create 6,000 new jobs in the United States. A
comprehensive review of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions is overdue. From the five-decade old embargo on Cuba to proposals for
extraterritorial sanctions on other countries, unilateral sanctions bring a host of unintended and unhelpful consequences. Its time to put an
end to these damaging policies.



A2 Fill-In Inevitable

Sanctions create a Negative Spillover effect third party countries avoid interacting with
the country
Peksen 06 (Dursun, Department of Political Science at the University of Missouri-
Columbia, Bilateral Trade and the Third Party Effect of US Sanctions, 2006, http://isa-m.missouri.edu/Awards/Peksen.pdf)

Although, in principle, third countries are expected to engage in more trade relations with the target, there
is no clear-cut evidence supporting this expectation. On the contrary, the research on the efficacy of
economic sanctions shows that sanction busting attempts, especially in the form of the black knight
effect, does not have any substantial impact on the targets resistance to or compliance with the senders
demands (Drury 1998; Noouriddin 2001). In other words, it is suggested that third countries tend to
intentionally avoid undermining economic coercion by not engaging in new trade relations with the
targets or may largely fail in their efforts to spoil unilateral sanctions. The failure in sanctions-busting
could be explained by the negative spillover argument. According to the negative spillover
perspective, third parties will not bust economic sanctions; on the contrary, they will suffer from
unilateral sanctions for two particular reasons. First, sanctions are used by sender countries as a means of
communicating disapproval and signaling resolve to targets and other countries (Galtung 1967, 411-412;
Barber 1979; Lindsay 1986; Drezner 2000; Schwebach 2000; Fisk 2000; Ang and Peksen 2007). In other
words, unilateral sanctions are a good indicator of the high salience that the sender state attributes to the
issue under dispute. More specifically, initiation of sanctions by a sender demonstrates the senders
decisiveness and also signals 8 to other countries the disapproval of the target country. Therefore, third
countries are largely aware of the possible repercussions from sanction busting and thus will better judge
the risks of opening their markets to the target. Consequently, because any sanction-busting attempt will
result in harming the economic ties with the sanctioning country, third countries will likely avoid
developing any economic relations with the targets undergoing unilateral sanctions. In practice, the
sanction-busting by third countries appears to be a serious concern for the US especially under the cases
where the US completely cuts the economic interaction with the targets. The Helms-Burton Act and the
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act are two examples of how the US tried to enforce third party loyalty and reduce
sanction busting. In both acts, the US government threatened private and public actors of third countries
with economic restrictions on the US or with the US companies abroad, if they developed economic ties
with hostile targets like Cuba, Iran, and Libya (Drezner 2000; Fisk 2000; Caruso 2003). Although the US
or other countries may not take official steps as in the cases of Cuba, Iran, and Libya during less salient
sanction cases, it is likely that sender countries will closely watch how the third countries react in
response to the imposition of unilateral sanctions and use diplomatic channels to convey their displeasure
of sanction-busting attempts.2 To sum up, unilateral US economic sanctions will likely make a similar
point in their game theoretical model that addresses the sender countries efforts to create and enforce
laws as part of the sanctions process to effectively interrupt the economic transactions between their
national firms and the target countries. They do not, however, consider the efforts by the sender countries
that are specifically directed at the economic agents of third countries. 9 deter risk-free third party private
and public actors from expanding economic ties with the sanctioned countries in order to avoid harming
their economic and diplomatic relations with the sender. The second reason of why third countries will
have less economic interactions with the targets following sanctions is related to the economic damage of
sanctions on the targets. Economic sanctions are imposed to weaken target states economically so as to
make them comply with the senders demands (Barber 1979; Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliott 1990).
Because the US is a global economic power and a major trading country, the domestic economy of target
states will suffer considerably from US sanctions due to the embargoes, boycotts, and financial
restrictions imposed on them (Gibbons 1999; Weiss et al. 1997; Weiss 1999; Lektzian 2003). The
immediate economic impact of sanctions such as imposing an embargo on the targets products or
withholding its financial assets will, in turn, reduce the targets economic and financial ability to pay for
imports from third countries. Therefore, since the targets economic capacity is diminished by the
sanctions, a negative spillover on the targets economic transactions with third countries is likely. Thus,
the general hypothesis resulting from the above discussion is that US sanctions will likely disrupt
economic relations and thus lead to lower trade volumes between the target and third countries.


Biotech & Pharm

Cuba opens up new markets like pharmaceutical and biotechnology to the United
States
Spadoni 2010 [Paolo Spadoni 2010 assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at
Augusta State Failed sanctions why the US sanctions against cuba could never work page 72-73]

Yet, more recent information shows that, with the exception of tourism activities in Mexico and China,
Cuba's most important investment operations abroad have focused on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals
joint venture projects in East Asia (China, Malaysia, and India), the Middle East (Iran), and Africa
(Algeria and Namibia) (Perez Villanueva 2006). Given the island's huge potential in these sectors,27 the
Castro government has begun to realize that investments overseas in knowledge-intensive industries and
the penetration of new markets may generate good profits and provide alternative hard currency resources
for the development of the Cuban economy. Washington's embargo does have an impact on Cuba's
internationalization strategy not only because Cuban products cannot be exported to the United States but
also because U.S.-based transnational corporations dominate the global pharmaceutical market and
especially the higher-value first world markets. Even so, Havana's authorities are stepping up efforts to
tap developing and emerging market countries where barriers to entry are relatively low and Cuban
pharmaceutical and biotechnology products face less severe licensing and registration hurdles.

No Medical Sales


No medical sales
Dominguez 2008 (Esteban Morales Dominguez: member of the Cuban Academy of Sciences,
awarded three times by both the Cuban Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Higher Education, and
Gary Prevost: Professor of Political Science at St. Johns University and the College of St. Benedict in
Minnesota, United States- Cuban Relations A Critical History 2008)

However, in the medical arena the restrictive provisions of the law have been more successful in
preventing meaningful trade. U.S. medical products companies interested in selling to Cuba still face the
1992 Cuban Democracy Act's insurmountable licensing hurdles. The small to midsize medical
companies most interested in such sales do not have the legal counsel necessary to overcome these
hurdles. The end result has been few Cuban purchases of U.S. medicines and no progress on gaining a
U.S. market for Cuban bio-medical products, such as the Hepatitis B vaccine.


Economic Decline Risks War

U.S. economic decline leads to war economic growth controls the internal link into
every scenario.
Andrs Cala master's in journalism and Michael J. Economides Professor of Chemical and
Biomolecular Engineering @ Cullen College of Engineering 2012; Americas blind spot Chavez, oil, and
US security pages xix-xx

The MENA region though is a distraction from a rising China and an increasingly assertive Russia,
indisputably America's two top priorities.The two are the only countries that could eventually be in a
position to challenge the United States militarily and economically. Terrorism will remain a constant
threat consuming massive resources and the hotspots in Afghanistan, nuclear-armed Pakistan, Yemen,
and Somalia will not quiet down anytime soon. Stakes are also high between nuclear-armed rivals
Pakistan and India, the other rising power. Throw in nuclear proliferations concerns from North Korea to
the Middle East, and dozens of apparently less pressing concerns around the world, whether it's the drug
war or genocide in Africa, and the powder quake is complete. And yet this plate-full of trouble is not the
worst that America has faced. After all, nuclear wars have been averted, not to mention winning two
World Wars and one Cold War. What makes the current challenges different though, more threatening in
fact, is the juncture. America's number one priority-at least this decade-is the economy. Everything else
depends on it. A weakened economy simply makes America more vulnerable. Economic growth in the
United States is still stubbornly slow, while Europe is in recession, even now into the fifth year of a
global economic crisis unprecedented since the Great Depression. While the world's richest countries
struggle, the developing world is leading growth, from China and the former Soviet Union, to Latin
America. The world order is reshuffling, as it has many times, but arguably this is the biggest change
since World War II. America's national security now and for the next few decades will be defined by its
ability to weather this storm. That will entail imposing its military supremacy in some quarters, but
fundamentally recovering its economic clout quickly, especially as regional powers like Russia, China,
India, Iran, Brazil, and others fill the power vacuum increasingly left behind by the United States. That
doesn't mean that the United States is in decline, but rather that many other countries are in ascent,
including some that are not exactly friendly. Considering the magnitude of the ongoing economic
stagnation, retrenchment is only natural. America will remain the single most powerful country for some
time. Western civilization led by the United States is evolving to fix its model in crisis. It will regroup,
no doubt, and come back, but when it does it will meet a new multipolar world. Restoring America's
economic prowess is vital in this juncture, even while the country continues to evolve amid an
increasingly intertwined world. "Three years ago, we confronted the worst financial crisis in eight
decades. That crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year-our fate is
interconnected; in a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together:' President Barack Obama told the
United Nations General Assembly in September 2011. To be sure, America's ability to assert itself
globally will grow more daunting for three reasons: its future is more tied to global affairs than it has
ever been; the United States is facing multiple short-, middle-, and long-term threats that have forced the
country to stretch its resources, and a stagnant economy is weakening its ability to deal simultaneously
with multiple domestic and international issues. That is just the reality. There is a lot going on now, even
more expected in the future, and simply not enough to go around.





**Economy**
Module Economy

Lifting the embargo causes huge economic stimulusempirically proven by the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05,The Cato Institute, Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo
against Cuba, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-
embargo-against-cuba, accessed 6/23/13., IC)

As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castros standing by giving him a handy excuse for the
failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though
the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less
deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist
without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the
economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving
them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less
independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American
tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by
extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects. Lost Opportunities for Americans Cuban families are not the only victims of
the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United
States to buy American products, especially farm goods. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S.
farm products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000,
total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From
dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S.
farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to
Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans. The
American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural
export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in
potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S.
International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per
year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that
Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports. Compounding our
Failures

Sanctions failtrade is key to promoting democracy and freedom
Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05,The Cato Institute, Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo
against Cuba, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-
embargo-against-cuba, accessed 6/23/13., IC)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea
have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened
the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and
globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies
where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of
communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority.
Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a
larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy. President Bush seems to understand this powerful
connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president
noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. Trade creates the habits of freedom, the president said, and
those habits begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies
that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about
values and believe in valuesnot just American values, but universal values that promote human dignitytrade is a
good way to do that. The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor
human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the
Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castros pathetic little workers paradise. Yet China
has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush
understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human
rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba. In fact, the
Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine Americas national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez shares
Castros hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is
not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our
neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuelas state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our
own energy sector, and Americanslast time I checkedcan travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is
that we dont have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio. This is not an argument for an embargo
against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes,
there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo. Cuban-American Politics For all those reasons,
pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to
lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease
the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the
general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college,
Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest. Its ironic that many of
those very same Cuban-Americans who support the embargo also routinely and massively violate the spirit if not the letter of the law. Each year,
Cuban Americans send hundreds of millions in hard-dollar remittances to their friends and families back in Cuba. Another 100,000 or so Cuban
Americans actually visit their homeland each year. These are supposed to be so-called emergency visits, although a disproportionate number of
the emergencies for some strange reason occur around the Christmas holiday. In the name of politics, Cuban American leaders want to restrict the
freedom of other Americans to visit Cuba while retaining that freedom for themselves. Expanding Our Influence in Cuba Instead of the
embargo, Congress and the administration should take concrete steps to expand Americas economic and
political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less
freely to such axis of evil countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or
some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban American. Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but
dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on
Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell
art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of
freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. Second, restrictions on
remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector,
encourage Cubas modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government.
Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial
lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would
bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private
commercial credit. Finally, the Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the
embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba
and alienated our allies. Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive
regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial
engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should
continue to criticize the Cuban governments abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to
undermine Castros authority from below. We should apply the presidents sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The
most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with
free people bearing dollars and new ideas.
Protectionism unleashes multiple scenarios for global nuclear war
Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 9
(Michael Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked
in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future
from Economic Collapse, 2009, p. 136-138, 6-31-13)

Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation
like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat
economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a
prolonged and devastating global disaster, But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long
forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade,
finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border
movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many
nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from
decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange, foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the (heap thanks to a rapidly
depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and
markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence
and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife,
or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must,
out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities
such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems
constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and
natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-
scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will
serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively,
nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of
American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,
bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber
rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more healed sense of urgency. China
will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt
colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into
a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated
that an "intense confrontation" between the United States and China is "inevitable" at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be
almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and
triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will
interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world
war.


Ext Solves US/Cuba Econ
Solves American and Cuban econ.
Lloyd, PHD in Political Science, 2011
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-
embargo/ EJH]
It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be
a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government,
250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year
before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S.
agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that
country from $13 million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share
from 6 percent to between 18 and 42 percent.


Solves democracy, economy, and oil exports best, and its extremely popular
Lloyd, Politics Daily Correspondent, 10
(Delia, 8/24/10, Politics Daily, Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo,
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/,
accessed 6/23/13, IC)

In that spirit, here are 10 reasons that lifting the embargo makes sense: 1. It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up
Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries.
According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from
roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an
enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13
million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to
between 18 and 42 percent. 2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
-- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to
keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But
there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to
explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class,
which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal
scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to
disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba
for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd
be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far
deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a
powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer,
scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist. 3. It's a double standard.
Another reason to question the link between the embargo and human rights is that it's a double standard that flies in the face of U.S. foreign
policy toward other high-profile authoritarian countries, most notably China. Stephen Colbert once quipped that Cuba is "a totalitarian,
repressive, communist state that -- unlike China -- can't lend us money." Unless and until the U.S. pursues a consistent policy of sanctions against
politically repressive regimes, the case against Cuba doesn't hold up very well. 4. It's out of date. To argue that U.S.-Cuban policy is an
anachronism is putting it mildly. In an international climate marked by cooperation on issues ranging from terrorism to global financial crises,
holding on to this last vestige of the Cold War foreign policy no longer makes sense. (Bear in mind that the young people now entering college
were not even alive when Czechoslovakia existed.) Sure, there's still tension between the United States and Russia. But the recent renegotiation of
the START agreement on nuclear proliferation reinforces the notion that the Cold War is no longer the dominant prism for understanding that
bilateral relationship, much less the Cuban-American one. 5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics
and it produced results, that might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars and analysts of economic sanctions have
repeatedly questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been
regime change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions, aid, or other
government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target economy
works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals." 6. It's
counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers with a
convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing attention to
their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the
United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the outside
world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization. 7. It's inhumane. If strategic arguments don't persuade you that it's
time to end the embargo, then perhaps humanitarian arguments will. For as anyone who's traveled to the island knows, there's a decidedly
enclave-like feel to those areas of the economy where capitalism has been allowed to flourish in a limited sense (e.g. tourism) and the rest of the
island, which feels very much like the remnant of an exhausted socialist economic model. When I went there in the 1990s with my sister, I
remember the throngs of men who would cluster outside the tourist haunts. They'd hope to persuade visitors like me to pretend to be their escort
so they could sneak into the fancier hotels and nightclubs, which they could not enter otherwise. Horse -- yes, horse-- was a common offering on
menus back then. That situation has apparently eased in recent years as the government has opened up more sectors of the economy to ordinary
Cubans. But the selective nature of that deregulation has only exacerbated economic inequalities. Again, one can argue that the problem here is
one of poor domestic policy choices, rather than the embargo. But it's not clear that ordinary Cubans perceive that distinction. Moreover, when
you stand in the airport and watch tourists disembark with bucket-loads of basic medical supplies, which they promptly hand over to their (native)
friends and family, it's hard not to feel that U.S. policy is perpetuating an injustice. 8. There's oil there. Another reason to think that it might be
time to reconsider our Cuba policy is this natural resource. Cuba has begun exploratory drilling in search of oil in its
territorial waters, with some reports estimating the island could become a major oil producer -- and refiner -- over the next five to 10
years. In an era where geopolitical realities may make places like Venezuela and the Middle East less
reliable sources of oil for the United States, we need all the friends we can get, particularly when they're right next door.
9. It's unpopular. According to the travel-service provider Orbitz Worldwide, 67 percent of Americans favor lifting the
travel ban, and 72 percent believe that expanding travel to Cuba would positively impact the lives
of Cubans. Orbitz has collected more than 100,000 signatures in favor of restoring travel to Cuba
through its OpenCuba.org drive. And according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the leading proponents of lifting the embargo, if a vote in
Congress were taken secretly, the ban on travel and trade would most likely fall. In other words, the environment to lift sanctions may be ripe
politically in a way that it wasn't even six months ago.

US-Cuban Relations are Benefitting Both Countries
Azel et al, Senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American
Studies, 10
(Jose, Joel Brito-executive director of the International Group for Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba, Jos Ral Perales is senior
program associate of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Jorge Pin is a visiting
research fellow with Florida International Universitys Latin American and Caribbean Center Cuban Research Institute. William
Reinsch currently serves as president of the National Foreign Trade Council. Steve Richer is public affairs advocate and former board
member for the National Tour Association. Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council
of the Americas (AS/COA. Ignacio Snchez is an attorney at DLA Piper who represents national and international clients on a
broad range of issues before the executive branch, Congress and the federal courts, August 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf, 6/24/13, AL)
The last decade has been marked by a significant growth in economic ties between the United States and
Cuba, a response to the partial relaxation of certain embargo restrictions, explained Jos Ral Perales,
Senior Program Associate of the Latin American Program. This has been particularly true within the agriculture
and tourism industries. For instance, in 2000 the United States implemented the Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act; in the following eight years bilateral agricultural trade and farm sales
more than tripled. Furthermore, since 2003, the United States has supplied annually more agricultural
products to Cuba than any other nation; from 2003 to 2008 an estimated 35 percent of Cubas
agricultural imports came from the United States. In terms of tourism, it is estimated that, by eliminating
current restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, the island nation could expect 500,000 to one million tourism-related U.S.
visits per annum. This would not only be a boost to the U.S. travel industry, it would also fundamentally transform the
landscape of the entire Caribbean tourism industry. These data hint at the many benefits to a
deeper U.S.- Cuban economic relationship.
Latin America Ties have already benefitted the U.S. with trade and culture
Tisdall, Assistant editor of the Guardian, 13
(Simon, 3/5/13, the Guardian, Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of fresh start
for US and Latin America, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-
chavez-dead-us-latin-america, 6/24/13, AL)
The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening dramatically. Trade between the US and
Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports rose by a massive 20%
in both directions."We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice
as much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations.
Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).A move by Obama to
end travel restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded across the region,
explode old stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro
regime's key backer, she suggested.
Only lifting the embargo can solve for the trade deficit caused by it; no alt causes
means lifting the embargo is uniquely key
Shipping Digest 07
(Shipping Digest, 4/9/07, Commerce with Cuba, L-N 6/23/13, PD)
To the best of my recollection, no presidential nominee of either major political party has called for
the lifting of the embargo. In the early years, it was because they were afraid of being perceived as soft
on Communism. All that time, however, we continued to trade with the Soviet Union. Moreover, after
President Nixon's historic visit to China in 1972 and especially after President Carter established formal
diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1978, it was evident that the U.S. was quite happy to trade with
Communist powers. Cuba, however, was always a different story. The reason for this is the political clout
of the anti-Castro Cuban community, especially in Florida, and we all know the impact of that state in
presidential elections. Perhaps one or more candidates this time around will have the courage to call for
lifting the embargo, or perhaps circumstances will change enough in Cuba to make the issue moot. Still,
the question is: Why wait? There are no good reasons for doing so, but there are at least 10 good
reasons for lifting the embargo. These are listed in a report issued in January by the Center for
Democracy in the Americas and a business coalition called USA Engage, which opposes unilateral trade
sanctions. From a business perspective, the most serious impact has been the harm to U.S. exporters
of goods and services. A report by the International Trade Commission estimated that the embargo
costs U.S. exporters more than $1 billion annually. So who's filling the void? Among others, China.
It's not just in consumer goods where U.S. companies are losing out, but also in capital goods such
as locomotives. For example, Cuba purchased 100 Chinese locomotives for $130 million. Chinese
equipment is being used to revamp Cuban ports. The trade ban also hurts cargo carriers such as
Crowley Liner Services. Travel restrictions not only infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens, but they
mean lost business for airlines and cruise operators. In addition, the embargo bans oil exploration by U.S.
companies. Meanwhile, companies based in Spain, Norway, India and Venezuela have won the right
to explore for oil in Cuba's offshore waters. To sum up: The embargo makes no sense; Bush should
lift it.


Ext Solves Trade Relations
Plan key to Cuban and US economies and is a prerequisite to political reform.
***Also: Plan popular, Florida not key, GOP supports plan, EE key to societal change***
Bandow, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, 11/11
(Doug, December 11, 2012The National Interest, Time to End the Cuban Embargo,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, 6/23/13. RJ)
But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no
memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: for the first time in years, maybe there is
some chance for a change in policy. And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to
Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American
community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban
Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island.
He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential
politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended
the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift
the embargo, explaining: The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union
existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he
blames the American embargo. There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the
European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana . Spains Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU
saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba. The
administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should
propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance,
granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The
U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2
billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further
economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans
into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros decline, Cuban politics remains
largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites. Lifting the
embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread
economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact
would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive
taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to
carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in historys dustbin. But it
will continue to cause much human hardship along the way. The Heritage Foundations John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that
the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime. But the dead hand
of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people. Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but
for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, commercial engagement is the best way to encourage
more open societies abroad. Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success
than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make
that day come sooner.
UQ Cuban Econ Low
Cuban Economy in Shambles Now
Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and
Director for Latin America Studies, July/August 13
(Julia E., July / August 13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-
communism/p30991, Accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Nevertheless, Cuba faces serious obstacles in its quest for greater economic vitality. Unlike China and
Vietnam at the start of their reform efforts, Cuba is an underdeveloped country with developed-world
problems. Not only is the population aging (18 percent of the population is over 60), but the country's
economy is heavily tilted toward the services sector. When Vietnam began its doi moi (renovation)
economic reforms in 1986, services accounted for about 33 percent of GDP, whereas the productive base
represented nearly 67 percent. By contrast, services in Cuba make up close to 75 percent of the island's
GDP -- the result of 20-plus years of severe industrial decay and low rates of savings and investment.
Service exports (mainly of health-care professionals), combined with tourism and remittances, constitute
the country's primary defense against a sustained balance-of-payments deficit. Cuban officials and
economists recognize this structural weakness and have emphasized the need to boost exports and foster a
more dynamic domestic market. Yet so far, the state has not been able to remedy the imbalance. In the
sugar industry, once a mainstay, production continues to flounder despite a recent uptick in global prices
and new Brazilian investment. Meanwhile, a corruption scandal and declining world prices have
weakened the nickel industry, leading to the closing of one of the island's three processing facilities. More
broadly, Cuban productivity remains anemic, and the country has been unable to capitalize on its highly
educated work force. Although important, the expansion of the small-business sector cannot resolve these
core issues. There are now 181 legal categories for self-employment, but they are concentrated almost
exclusively in the services sector, including proprietors of independent restaurants, food stands, and bed-
and-breakfasts. Start-up funds are scarce, fees for required licenses are high, and some of the legal
categories are senselessly specific. It also remains unclear whether the chance to earn a legitimate profit
will lure black-market enterprises out into the open.
Cuban Economy Low NowIndicators Prove
Adams, Times Latin America Correspondent, 09
(David, 8/7/09, http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/in-cuba-the-economy-is-so-
bad-the-shantytowns-are-looking-good/1025725, Accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Cuba's economic crisis is hitting the island hard. Faced with a record post-revolution $11-billion trade
deficit because of the dramatic rise in food and fuel import costs, the government has had to slash
spending, cutting back on monthly food rations, subsidized lunches in workplace cafe-terias, housing
construction, public transportation schedules, as well as limiting air conditioning to only five hours each
afternoon in state stores and offices. Cuba has long blamed the U.S. economic embargo for cutting it off
from cheaper import sources, as well as international lending organizations. But Cuban officials recognize
they need to improve housing and state salaries. In a speech in July 2007, Ral Castro said a Cuban state
salary was "clearly insufficient to satisfy all necessities." He noted this brought "social indiscipline" and
black marketeering. Due to the economic crisis, the government appears to be taking a lenient approach to
the squatters. A law that requires illegal squatters to be evicted and returned to their home towns is not
being enforced. Nor is the state doing anything to prevent squatters from stringing illegal lines to state
utility poles to get free electricity. Indeed, Castro has publicly advocated formalizing the squatter
communities and incorporating them into local municipalities.

Cuban Debt Increasing Empirics Prove
Frank, Columnist for Reuters, 08
(Marc, 12/18/08, http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/cuba-delaying-debt-
payments-to-france-and-businesses/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Three hurricanes and the global financial crisis have left Cuba strapped for cash, forcing the government
to juggle debt payments and seek new financing, diplomatic and business sources say. France is the latest
government to receive notice from Cuba that it needs to reschedule upcoming debt payments, European
diplomats said. A few months ago, Cuba told Japan and Germany it could not meet debt payments but
those problems apparently have been worked out. Now France has received the same news, a diplomat
said. The information was confirmed by French business sources. Cuba, whose foreign debt rose by $1.1
billion to $16.5 billion in 2007, recently rescheduled some debt with China. The government did not
immediately respond to a request seeking comment, but Cubas planning and economy minister, Jose
Luis Rodriguez, recently said the island, like all countries in the region, faces a difficult year ahead due to
the global financial crisis. Various foreign businessmen, who like the diplomats asked that their names
not be used, said payments had slowed from Cuban state-run banks, with cash transfers that usually took
48 hours now sometimes put off for weeks. It appears they do not have the cash on hand so they delay
and then pay you and delay payment to someone else, one Western businessman said.
Cuban Economy Suffering Now
Michigan State University, GlobalEdge Research Team, NDG
(Post 11, http://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/cuba/economy, accessed 6/30/13,
ARH)
The Cuban economy suffers first and foremost from a lack of productivity and an overdependence on the
external sector. Cuba suffered a significant decline in gross domestic product of at least 35% between
1989 and 1993 as the loss of Soviet subsidies laid bare the economy's fundamental weaknesses. To
alleviate the economic crisis, in 1993 and 1994 the government introduced a few market-oriented reforms,
including opening to tourism, allowing some foreign investment, legalizing the dollar, and authorizing
self-employment for some 150 occupations. These measures resulted in modest economic growth,
although the official statistics are deficient and provide an incomplete measure of Cuba's real economic
situation. From 2000 to 2009, Cuba experienced a series of severe economic disruptions, including lower
sugar and nickel prices, increases in petroleum costs, devastating hurricanes in 2001, 2004, and 2008, a
major drought in the eastern half of the island, increasing external debt, liquidity issues, and stagnant or
decreasing agricultural and industrial productivity. Significant economic assistance from Venezuela, and
to a lesser degree China, has helped keep the Cuban economy afloat. Living conditions in 2010 remained
well below 1989 levels. Moreover, the gap in the standard of living is widening between those with
access to convertible pesos and those without. Jobs that can earn salaries in convertible pesos or tips from
foreign businesses and tourists have become highly desirable. Over $1 billion in yearly remittances
exacerbates the gap. Prolonged austerity and the state-controlled economy's inefficiency in providing
adequate goods and services have created conditions for a flourishing informal economy in Cuba. As the
variety and amount of goods available in state-run peso stores has declined and prices at convertible peso
stores remain unaffordable to most of the population, Cubans have turned increasingly to the black market
to obtain needed food, clothing, and household items. Pilferage of items from the work place to sell on the
black market or illegally offering services on the sidelines of official employment is common. A report by
an independent economist and opposition leader speculates that more than 40% of the Cuban economy
operates in the informal sector. In the last few years, the government has carried out an anti-corruption
campaign, including the creation of a Comptroller Generals Office, repeated street-level crackdowns, and
ongoing ideological appeals. So far, these measures have yielded limited if any results.


Solves FDI
The Embargo prevents FDI which is key to maintaining the entire Cuban economic
base.
Human Rights Sub-commission, human rights think tank, 03
(Human Rights Sub-Commission, 2/2003, CETIM (Europe- Third World Center),
The Effects of the US embargo against Cuba and the reasons of the urgent need to
lift it, http://www.cetim.ch/oldsite/2003/03js04w4.htm, 6/24/13, ND)

If it affects negatively all the sectors 3, the embargo directly impedes - besides the exportations - the driving forces of the Cuban
economic recovery, at the top of which are tourism, foreign direct investments (FDI) and currency transfers. Many
European subsidiaries of US firms had recently to break off negotiations for the management of hotels, because
their lawyers anticipated that the contracts would be sanctioned under the provisions of the "Helms-Burton law". In
addition, the buy-out by US groups of European cruising societies, which moored their vessels in Cuba, cancelled the projects in 2002-03. The
obstacles imposed by the United States, in violation of the Chicago Convention on civil aviation, to the sale or the rental
of planes, to the supply of kerosene and to access to new technologies (e-reservation, radio-localization), will lead to a loss
of 150 million dollars in 2003. The impact on the FDI is also very unfavourable. The institutes of promotion of
FDI in Cuba received more than 500 projects of cooperation from US companies, but none of them could be
realized - not even in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry, where Cuba has a very attractive potential. The
transfer of currencies from the United States is limited (less than 100 dollars a month per family) and some European banks
had to restrain their commitment under the pressure of the US which let them know that indemnities would be required if the
credits were maintained. In Cuba, the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and finance, insurance, petrol,
chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard, agriculture and fishing,
electronics and computing, but also for the export sectors (where the US property prevailed before 1959), such as those of
sugar, whose recovery is impeded by the interdiction of access to the fist international stock exchange of raw materials (New York), of nickel,
tobacco, rum.

Impact Cuban Black Market
Plan key to Cuban economy and reform and destroys the Cuban black market
Cave, NY Times Correspondent based in Mexico City, 11/19
(Damien, November 19 2013, New York Times, Easing of Restrictions in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S.
Embargo, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-
easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print , Accessed 6/24/13. RJ)
HAVANA If I could just get a lift, said Francisco Lpez, imagining the addition of a hydraulic elevator as he stood by a rusted Russian
sedan in his mechanics workshop here. All he needed was an investment from his brother in Miami or from a Cuban friend there who already
sneaks in brake pads and other parts for him. The problem: Washingtons 50-year-old trade embargo, which prohibits even the most basic
business dealings across the 90 miles separating Cuba from the United States. Indeed, every time Mr. Lpezs friend in Florida accepts payment
for a car part destined for Cuba, he puts himself at risk of a fine of up to $65,000. With Cuba cautiously introducing free-market changes that
have legalized hundreds of thousands of small private businesses over the past two years, new economic bonds between Cuba and the United
States have formed, creating new challenges, new possibilities and a more complicated debate over the embargo. The longstanding logic has
been that broad sanctions are necessary to suffocate the totalitarian government of Fidel and Ral Castro. Now, especially for many Cubans who
had previously stayed on the sidelines in the battle over Cuba policy, a new argument against the embargo is gaining currency that the
tentative move toward capitalism by the Cuban government could be sped up with more assistance from
Americans. Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with economic lifelines, some Cubans
and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in
2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Ral Castro, 81,
leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and update
American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic independence from the government. Maintaining
this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hard-liners, said Carlos
Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. What we
should be doing is helping the reformers. Any easing would be a gamble. Free enterprise may not necessarily lead to the
embargos goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China, where the loosening of
economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at using previous American efforts to soften the
embargo to their advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at state-owned stores. And Cuba has a long
history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State Department contractor who has spent nearly
three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana. In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main
impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban
Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also
requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they
have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and
regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further
expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban
businesses. Even these adjustments which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba,
according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-
Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules. When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more
American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
proposed an even tighter embargo. The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered,
she wrote in an e-mail. Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing reforms while, in
reality, its tightening its grip on its people. Many Cubans agree that their government cares more about control than economic growth.
Business owners complain that inspectors pounce when they see signs of success and demand receipts to prove that supplies were not stolen from
the government, a common practice here. One restaurant owner in Havana said he received a large fine for failing to produce a receipt for plastic
wrap. Cuban officials say the shortages fueling the black market are caused by the embargo. But mostly they
prefer to discuss the policy in familiar terms. They take reporter after reporter to hospitals of frail infants, where American medical exports are
allowed under a humanitarian exception. Few companies bother, however, largely because of a rule, unique to Cuba, requiring that the American
companies do on-site monitoring to make sure products are not used for weapons. The Treasury Department is asking me, in a childrens
hospital, if I use, for example, catheters for military uses chemical, nuclear or biological, said Dr. Eugenio Selman, director of the William
Soler Pediatric Cardiology Center. As for the embargos restriction on investment, Cuban officials have expressed feelings that are more mixed.
At a meeting in New York in September with a group called Cuban Americans for Engagement, Cubas foreign minister, Bruno Rodrguez
Parrilla, said business investment was not a priority. Today the economic development of Cuba does not demand investments of $100,000,
$200,000, $300,000, he said, according to the groups account of the meeting. Rather, he called for hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a
local port. Owners of Cubas small businesses, mostly one-person operations at this point, say they know that the government would most likely
find ways to profit from wider economic relations with the United States. The response to the informal imports that come from Miami in the
suitcases of relatives, for instance, has been higher customs duties. Still, in a country where Cubans resolve their way around government
restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the
United States change course. Mr. Lpez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing
imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the governments controls while lowering
prices and creating more work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the
pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the governments main excuses for failing to provide freedom, economic opportunity or
just basic supplies. Last month, someone asked me to redo their kitchen, but I told them I couldnt do it because I didnt have the materials,
said Pedro Jos, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid government pressure. Look around
Cuba is destroyed, he added, waving a hand toward a colonial building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. There is a lot
of work to be done.
Protectionism unleashes multiple scenarios for global nuclear war
Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 9
(Michael Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked
in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future
from Economic Collapse, 2009, p. 136-138, 6-31-13)

Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation
like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat
economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a
prolonged and devastating global disaster, But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long
forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade,
finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border
movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many
nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from
decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange, foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the (heap thanks to a rapidly
depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and
markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence
and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife,
or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must,
out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities
such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems
constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and
natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-
scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will
serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively,
nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of
American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,
bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber
rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more healed sense of urgency. China
will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt
colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into
a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated
that an "intense confrontation" between the United States and China is "inevitable" at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be
almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and
triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will
interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world
war.